If, like me, you've heard about, and read up on, the famous Bell Inequality experiment, then my guess is, unless you're physics grad, that you won't understand it. I, too, don't understand it, but my understanding of it is now a little better than it was before listening to the presentation below. — Wayfarer
I think the question of the nature of the wave-function is a metaphysical question, or even THE metaphysical question implied by modern physics. A lot of the controversies revolve around that point. — Wayfarer
...per the probabilities predicted by QM... — Andrew M
I think the question of the nature of the wave-function is a metaphysical question, or even THE metaphysical question implied by modern physics. A lot of the controversies revolve around that point. — Wayfarer
So when you say the probabilities that QM predicts, do you mean via the Schrodinger wave function and/or matrix mechanics? — Enrique
One of the odd spin-offs of this, is that David Deutsch is Everett’s #1 fan. His first book, Fabric of Reality, or something, is an impassioned plea for the reality of many worlds, and an implicit condemnation of all the bone-headed dinosaurs who can’t accept it. — Wayfarer
I think the argument for Everett’s theory is incontrovertible now. It seems to me that there is as much evidence for the existence of parallel universes as there is for the existence of dinosaurs. The logic for the evidence in both cases is very similar. No-one has ever seen a dinosaur, we’ve only seen fossils, and similarly, no-one has ever seen a parallel universe, but we have seen interference phenomena. And just as there is no other explanation of dinosaurs, so there is no other explanation for interference phenomena. And what most physicists do nowadays is they adopt what is called the “shut up and calculate” interpretation. Which says just use the equations to predict the outcome of experiments but do not ask what brings about those outcomes. Which is just the same logic as saying, “Do not ask what brings about fossils.” — David Deutsch
To those who might know, does the following interpretation of Schrodinger's wave function have any validity: — Enrique
Which is just the same logic as saying, “Do not ask what brings about fossils.” — David Deutsch
Put another way: There is probably a reason most quantum mechanics interpretations that bring in consciousness are dismissed as pseudoscience nowadays by most experts. — khaled
Ah, but do you have a non-pseudoscientific definition of expert. — boethius
Someone with a Phd or doctorate at least. — khaled
And it’s not the domain of science to define what “expert” means. So there is no scientific or pseudoscientific definition. But that’s what I have in mind when I say “expert”. — khaled
There is probably a reason most quantum mechanics interpretations that bring in consciousness are dismissed as pseudoscience nowadays by most experts. — khaled
“What was happening in the universe before conscious observers evolved?” — khaled
but says that the observer has a role in the experimental outcome — Wayfarer
which calls into question the purported 'mind-independent' nature of the result. — Wayfarer
It is analogous to wearing a pair of spectacles, without which nothing can be seen, and then looking through them, and demanding 'show me where in this picture there are spectacles'. — Wayfarer
We can devise an experiment to resolve who likely has these socially constructed tittles — boethius
If it's a claimed fact about the world — boethius
You mean looking at their resumes? — khaled
No, it’s a definition. An expert is someone with a PhD or doctorate. We can confirm whether or not someone has this by looking at their resume. What’s so difficult here? — khaled
The video hasn’t shown that “observer” has anything do with minds. Or what exactly is and isn’t an observer. — khaled
not features of society we are told about without experimental evidence, is what I disagree with. — boethius
You can't just define experts into existence in any meaningful sense. — boethius
are you referring to an objective collapse theory? — Andrew M
A physical observer is an objective instrumental observer not a person — magritte
As the article says, "the absolute square of the wave function is interpreted as an actual matter density" — Enrique
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.